Post-Darwinist

This blog provides stories that Denyse O'Leary, a Toronto-based journalist, has found to be of interest, as she covers the growing intelligent design controversy. It supports her book By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg 2004). Does the universe - and do life forms - show evidence of intelligent design? If so, Carl Sagan was wrong and so is Richard Dawkins. Now what?

Friday, May 27, 2005

The Smithsonian Institution and the Discovery Institute are providing slightly different stories about what is going to happen on June 23.

(Note: If you don’t know what this is all about, you will be best off to read the previous post first. I apologize for the inconvenience, but it really is the simplest and best approach.)

Right now I am going to post the two sides’ stories, tell you what I think, and stay on top of it all in the next few weeks.

The public affairs officer in charge of special events at the Smithsonian, Randall Kremer, told me (Denyse O’Leary) the following this afternoon:

DO: I am just trying to clarify that there is going to be a showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian on June 23.

RK: Yes, the Discovery Institute made a donation to the Smithsonian and in return have the privilege of hosting an event here and I understand that that’s the film they are going to be showing.

DO: One of my issues is that I have to book a flight and get down there so I just want to make sure that it is not going to be cancelled or anything ...

RK: Not that I’m aware of, no.

DO: So the way it works is, the Discovery Institute made a donation, and so they’re going to rent the facilities and show the film ...

RK: They’re not renting the facilities; by making a donation, they have an opportunity to host an event here, yeah. It’s just semantics, really. they’re holding an event here. We have events here all the time. ... It’s a normal opportunity that they would be hosting an event here and so they would be showing that film. If anything else comes up, you have my direct number.

DO: Normally when such an event is shown, the Smithsonian co-hosts the event with the ...

RK: Yes, that’s just the pro forma

Okay, that’s the Smithsonian’s version.

A Discovery Institute spokesperson told me that Discovery had not made a donation but rather entered into a contract and paid for the right to hold an event at the Smithsonian. Co-sponsorship was the Smithsonian’s initiative. (Note: This paragraph has been edited from an earlier version because I had posted a communication that the sender now maintains was private. I won't contest his views regarding the nature of the communication, but I don't think it's material either. I certainly stand by the facts posted in this paragraph, which are identical to the facts posted in the previous one. - Denyse)

What I think: This may be miscommunication between Randall and Discovery.

Randall assumes that Discovery made a donation but Discovery assumes they paid for the right to hold an event. Randall assumes that the Smithsonian co-hosts all events and Discovery doesn’t. I think Randall and Discovery need to talk.

Clearly, something is going to happen at the Smithsonian on June 23 that should delight ID advocates and enrage anti-ID folk. But the two organizations differ on how they want to define it.

I was going to post the invitation I received, but several things went wrong: 1) My Internet service provider took the evening off 2) I couldn’t make Picasa upload work 3) Now I think I hadn’t better post the invitation anyway, for several reasons, including the fact that some persons—not the genteel regular readers of this blog, of course, but a scruffier sort—could print it out and try to get in for free drinks and a show. If you want to know more about the invitation, you can contact someone at the Discovery Institute.

Also, I gather that films (obviously) have to be screened and I have to assume that Privileged Planet (which is excellent, by the way) passed the screen test.

So, friends, thanks for your patience. Something ID-friendly is definitely happening at the Smithsonian and I hope the wine is as good as the movie. I will keep you abreast of uproars as they ensue.

Tomorrow I will blog about a bunch of other neat ID-related stuff. I don’t suppose any of those Institution/Institute people work weekends, so I can talk about something else for a change. Whew!

Intelligent design theory argues that the universe and life forms show detectible evidence of having been intelligently designed. In other words, it is not just a matter of religious faith. ID theory does not prove that what Christians say about God is true. But it does make Christian and other theistic faiths seem reasonable. That is the chief reason it is highly controversial among those science professionals who are emotionally committed to agnosticism, skepticism, or atheism, and they have attacked it in many high profile popular and science publications over the last few years. (Note: Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism, regardless of the stance it adopts on the age of the earth, attempts to accord the evidence of science with Scripture, but intelligent design looks only at the science evidence for design.)

So why is the Smithsonian considering premiering a film that suggests that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design? Well, the Smithsonian depends for over 80 percent of its funding on the American federal government (approximately 67 percent from direct appropriations and over 13 percent from grants from federal agencies) and its new projects require the approval of Congress. An insider suggests that the US government is leaning on the venerable science institution to behave better toward people who want to talk about intelligent design?

Whether ID is correct or not, it certainly deserves a hearing. Unless, that is, science is nothing more than the Church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, who are best known for advocating that there is no design and we are alone in a meaningless universe. They have been given plenty of public time and space to promote their philosophical assumptions, but there is nothing especially scientific about their assumptions, and if they are false, it is high time they were exposed.

And what better way to do it than giving a hearing to some of the colleagues of Richard Sternberg? He’s the guy who had to appeal to the Office of Special Counsel on account of job harassment at the Smithsonian because—even though he is not even an advocate of intelligent design—because he had published a peer-reviewed ID-friendly paper in a Smithsonian-sponsored journal. He has told me privately that he intends to attend the premiere of that film. It will be nice for him to see the Smithsonian confirm by actions, not mere words, that it is willing to listen to all sides of an issue.

It is just conceivable that scientists who cannot bear the thought of considering these issues will put pressure on the Smithsonian to cancel the event, but that would only establish that what their critics say is true, they are indeed a Church of Darwin (or Sagan and Dawkins, depending on your denomination). In that case, the American government will have to disestablish them.

(Note 2: I am in the process of confirming/disconfirming that Discovery is renting the premises and that, nonetheless, the Smithsonian is co-sponsoring the event, which is certainly what the invitation I have received suggests. Watch this space for details.)

(Note 1: This post gives the gist of the May 26 updated post on the ID film to be shown at the Smithsonian, and adds the fact that scientist Rick Sternberg will attend the premiere.)

In a stunning development, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington will co-host the “national premiere and evening reception” for an ID-friendly film, The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe http://www.privilegedplanet.com—with the ID-promoting Discovery Institute www.discovery.org in late June.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php argues that the universe and life forms show detectible evidence of having been intelligently designed. In other words, it is not just a matter of religious faith. ID theory does not prove that what Christians say about God is true. But it does make Christian and other theistic faiths seem reasonable. That is the chief reason it is highly controversial among those science professionals who are emotionally committed to agnosticism, skepticism, or atheism, and they have attacked it in many high profile popular and science publications over the last few years. (Note: Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism, regardless of the stance it adopts on the age of the earth, attempts to accord the evidence of science with Scripture, but intelligent design looks only at the science evidence for design.)

So why is the Smithsonian considering premiering a film that suggests that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design? Well, the Smithsonian depends for over 80 percent of its funding on the American federal government (approximately 67 percent from direct appropriations and over 13 percent from grants from federal agencies) and its new projects require the approval of Congress. An insider suggests that the US government is leaning on the venerable science institution to behave better toward people who want to talk about intelligent design?

Whether ID is correct or not, it certainly deserves a hearing. Unless, that is, science is nothing more than the Church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, who are best known for advocating that there is no design and we are alone in a meaningless universe. They have been given plenty of public time and space to promote their philosophical assumptions, but there is nothing especially scientific about their assumptions, and if they are false, it is high time they were exposed.

And what better way to do it than giving a hearing to some of the colleagues of Richard Sternberg? He’s the guy who had to appeal to the Office of Special Counsel on account ofjob harassment at the Smithsonian because—even though he is not even an advocate of intelligent design—because he had published a peer-reviewed ID-friendly paper in a Smithsonian-sponsored journal. He has told me privately that he intends to attend the premiere of that film. It will be nice for him to see the Smithsonian confirm by actions, not mere words, that it is willing to listen to all sides of an issue.

It is just conceivable that scientists who cannot bear the thought of considering these issues will put pressure on the Smithsonian to cancel the event, but that would only establish that what their critics say is true, they are indeed a Church of Darwin (or Sagan and Dawkins, depending on your denomination). In that case, the American government will have to disestablish them.

(Note 2: I am in the process of confirming/disconfirming that Discovery is renting the premises and that, nonetheless, the Smithsonian is co-sponsoring the event. Watch this space for details.)